Race and Rhythm in Rock and Roll Hector Qirko

Abstract This chapter argues that contrary to conventional wisdom and the views of many scholars and critics, rock and roll’s most important rhythmic elements are derived from a complex blend of African, American, and European musical traditions. There is therefore no objective support for racialized characterizations of the “beat” that often serve, however unintentionally, to perpetuate stereotypes in discussions of both the genre and American popular music more broadly. You take a white right hand, and a black left hand, and what do you got? Son, you got rock and roll. —Sam Phillips (purportedly) The mysteries of black and white in American music are just not that simple. —Greil Marcus

Tracking the origins of rock and roll is as difficult as identifying the headwaters of a large river. As Robert Palmer observed, “It would take at least one book, if not a library, to trace various kinds of rock ’n’ roll back through their myriad sources” (1992, 6). Attempts to do so are complicated by the fact that musical genres are ultimately defined socially, as a consequence of economic, political, and above

240

H E C T OR Q I R KO

all, cultural processes. The “true” origins and characteristics of any genre at any point in time, much less over time, cannot be determined objectively (Moore 2002; Peterson 1997). Unsurprisingly, then, attempts to associate specific musical features (as well as artists and dates) with the birth of rock and roll often depend on which social factors are perceived to be most important to its development (D’Anjou 2003). A good illustration of these difficulties is the relationship between race and rock and roll, in particular regarding the genre’s rhythmic characteristics, or “beat.” At the outset of rock and roll’s development as an independent genre in the United States in the 1950s, popular opposition to the music was couched in racial as well as generational terms. Many adult whites perceived rock and roll as “black music,” no doubt in part, because initially African American artists predominantly performed it (Martin and Segrave 1993). However, the characterization was also due to the music’s purported “jungle beat,” the volume and intensity of which were perceived as alien and even dangerous to rock and roll’s young, white audience (Altschuler 2003; Kamin 1975). This was, as Michelle Hamilton notes, simply a long-held belief in a new context: Since the mid-nineteenth century, more than any other music worldwide, that of African Americans has worked its way into white imaginations. It has been a development that racial reactionaries have regarded with apprehension, even horror. In that cross-racial attraction they could see only evil, a barbaric jungle beat that had the power to remake its listeners—not just to move their bodies, but to reshape their minds. (1999, 650)

It is easy to dismiss a racialized reaction to rock and roll as stemming from ignorance and racism. However, many music scholars and critics also racialize when they describe the rhythmic character

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

241

of rock and roll as derived primarily from its African American, and often ultimately African, roots. This paper argues instead that rock and roll’s most important rhythmic elements, like the genre as a whole, result from a complex blend of cultural traditions and that as strong a case can be made for the importance of “white” influences as for those derived from African American and African sources. With respect to rhythm, as with the genre’s other features, there is therefore no objective support for dichotomous characterizations of racial contributions, which ultimately serve, however unintentionally, to perpetuate stereotypes in discussions of not only rock and roll, but other genres of American popular music. As Greil Marcus (1997, 155) noted about the notion that Elvis Presley was successful because he was a white man performing black music: “It’s just not that simple.”

Rock and Roll and R&B Rock and roll is typically viewed by scholars and critics as originating from a blend of various styles, particularly rhythm and blues (R&B) and country (or country and western) (e.g., Belz 1972; Friedlander 2006; Shaw 1974; E. Ward 1986; Wilgus 1970). Sometimes the influence of pop is also emphasized (e.g., Stuessy and Lipscomb 2009; Wicke 1990). Other views focus on R&B and country’s antecedents— thus, Charles Brown (1983) calls rock and roll a mixture of folk, pop, and jazz, subsuming R&B in his third category, while Evans (1987) describes only blues and country as rock and roll’s root styles. In some cases, researchers deemphasize the contributions of specific genres by focusing instead on their shared core. For example, Hatch and Millward state that the “musical family blues-boogie-gospel . . . contains virtually all the elements out of which the musical types in the pop tradition [including rock and roll] have been constructed” (1987, 5), and Palmer emphasizes “myriad forms of boogie-woogie,”

242

H E C T OR Q I R KO

aimed at both black and white audiences, in his version of the story (1995, 16). However, some scholars describe rock and roll not as a hybrid form at all, but simply R&B marketed to and appropriated by white audiences (e.g., DeCurtis 1996; Ewen 1977; George 1989; Redd 1985). For example, Szatmary (2000) argues that rock and roll is the result of a short leap from up-tempo, frantic R&B taken by a handful of artists, notably Little Richard and Chuck Berry. Others counter that the country and western influence on rockabilly, one of the earliest forms of rock and roll (most famously recorded by Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, and other artists from Sam Phillips’s Sun Records in Memphis), is undeniable (e.g., Morrison 1996). Perhaps the most reasoned view is that while disc jockey Alan Freed’s use of the term rock ’n’ roll to describe the R&B he played in Cleveland in the early 1950s launched the genre, very shortly thereafter there developed variants influenced by other styles (Campbell 2008; Friedlander 2006; Gillett 1996). At any rate, whether or not descriptions of early rock and roll invoke some blend of genres typically associated with white or black popular music (or both), virtually all share the view that R&B or its African American antecedents contributed importantly to the rhythmic foundation of the music. To Wicke, “Right from the start rock and roll was nothing but black music played by white musicians,” with African American rhythms playing the “decisive role” in the development of the new genre (1990, 18). Similarly, Gillett notes that the many early forms of rock and roll all “depended for their dance beat on contemporary Negro dance rhythms” (1996, 29). Many scholars see these rhythms as ultimately African in origin. Thus Palmer argues that transplanted African music provided several important elements that survived in rock and roll, including both “remarkable polyrhythmic complexity [and] a kind of percussive directionality

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

243

or rhythmic drive” (1992, 4). Gracyk agrees, noting that the rock beat “preserves an African attitude toward basic accents, rejecting the standard Western assumption that the first beat of the measure is the strongest” (1996, 135). This “irresistible and implacable rhythmic drive, that never [loses] momentum” (Ewen 1977, 555) is also often specifically attributed to R&B, and many early rock and roll songs, for example Elvis Presley’s “Blue Moon of Kentucky” is seen as emblematic of the genre because of its R&B-derived “chugging rhythm” (E. Ward 1986, 81). In short, a common view regarding the rhythm of rock and roll can be summed up in the first quotation that introduces this paper. In the movie Great Balls of Fire, Sam Phillips describes rock and roll to pianist Jerry Lee Lewis in terms he will understand: the melody (right hand) may be white pop- or countryinfluenced, but the rhythm (left hand) is straight out of the black, R&B tradition (Plasketes 1989, 75).

The Rock and Roll Beat Clearly, R&B influenced 1950s rock and roll in many ways. Powerful singing styles, typical instrumentation, and call and response vocal/ vocal and vocal/instrument patterns are all important features in rock and roll’s development (C. T. Brown 1983, 42-45). And there is much in the rhythm of R&B that is important as well. One element is a dynamic intensity that was not typically found in pop or country at the time. As Leo Mintz noted (in E. Ward 1986, 69), white kids began buying R&B music because “the beat is so strong that anyone could dance to it without a lesson.” R&B rhythmic styles certainly utilized more forceful rhythm sections than any other styles of the times, and the influence of that approach on rock and roll is undeniable. A related element is what Belz calls the “Big Beat,” which involves not only a harddriving beat, but also a “totality of impact” (1972, 29)

244

H E C T OR Q I R KO

created by the close relationship between vocals and instrumentation, both in terms of arrangements and recording “mix” that “projected a fabric of sound in which everything struck the listener at once— instrumental sound, lyrics, fragmentary or improvised lyrics, and all with a powerful incessant beat” (1972, 29-30). Unquestionably, the “total rhythm” R&B style contributed immensely to early rock and roll. In fact, later rock and roll (and, subsequently, rock) took this approach a step further by emphasizing the repetitive and even unison playing of various instruments to reinforce the beat, in comparison to R&B’s more individualistic ensemble playing. In addition, and most obviously, many of rock and roll’s basic rhythmic figures, particularly the “backbeat” accenting of beats 2 and 4 and the emphases on triplet figures and dotted eight-notes, sprang from R&B and earlier blues and boogie-woogie patterns (C. T. Brown 1983; Campbell 2008). However, other claims for R&B’s rhythmic contributions to rock and roll may not be as valid. One is Palmer’s “remarkable polyrhythmic complexity.” Here Horowitz may be correct in arguing that “the first stage in the development of rock was the sacrifice of musical complexity for the sake of capturing an audience” (2010, 141). In his view, rock is notable for its “rejection of complication for its own sake [and] the return to a more direct expression of emotions” (Horowitz 2010, 142). While popular music as a whole may be noted for these features, it is certainly clear that rhythmically much R&B, as well as early rock and roll, was obviously and intentionally simple and repetitive. Another element to be considered is the average tempo of rock and roll songs, which is generally faster than that of R&B and is thought by some to relate, at least in part, to the influence of country music (Belz 1972; Tosches 1999). While the dynamic force of rock and roll is certainly traceable to R&B, then, another vehicle for its

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

245

ability to convey excitement—the tempo—is not as clearly derived from the same source. The most important point, however, involves not rhythmic patterns themselves but the way in which they are executed, in particular rock and roll’s generally more strictly adhered-to meter. While this is an essential component of rock and roll, its roots do not as clearly lie in the R&B tradition, which, as in blues and black gospel at the time, relies on the deliberate avoidance of an overtly strict, regular beat (Savage 1989, 72). Instead, these genres emphasized the “push-pull” of the beat rather than a metronome-like execution (Titon 2009). This creates a metric “swing” fundamental to the rhythmic enjoyment derived from the music. Rather than implied and manipulated, however, rock and roll’s approach to “time” was (and continues to be) to attack it directly. Thus, E. Ward describes Sleepy John Estes’s 1930s “Expressman Blues” as “eerily prophetic of rock and roll” primarily because of its “crisp 4/4 time,” which places the tune “way outside” the blues mainstream of the times (1986, 29). Writers who have observed this difference in the “swing” and “rock” styles typically characterize the latter as negative. Titon argues that when the triplet rhythm of slow blues is “accented monotonously, as in many rock ’n’ roll songs from the 1950’s, it becomes a cliche” (2009, 25). Likewise, Birchall sees the rhythm and blues of early rock transformed into “rhythm without blues—a drearily insistent and repetitive beat with no authentic feeling in it” (1969, 99, emphasis in original). Chuck Berry’s successful hybrid stylings are an excellent early example of the difference between the two approaches. Christgau (1992) notes that Berry was criticized for the repetitiveness of his style, the “orgasmic monotony” (Meltzer 1970, 78) of which Berry himself once said: “Really all I want to do is like chop chop chop” (Salvo 1989, 227, emphasis in original). But as Christgau adds,

246

H E C T OR Q I R KO

“Repetition without tedium is the backbone of rock and roll” (1992, 62), and Campbell considers Berry the “architect” of rock and roll in large part due to his having developed its beat, one “completely purged of any swing influence” (2008, 112). On the other hand, the early Rolling Stones—who, although often called the best rock and roll band in the world, started out to be “simply a good R&B band” (Mick Jagger, in Smith and Fink 1988, 207)—are one of the rarer examples of the continued use of the more fluid R&B approach in rock and roll (although even in their case, the style is “simplified” [Beckett and Merton 1969, 109]).

Other Roots of the Rock and Roll Beat The influence of pop music on what becomes rock and roll is typically viewed as that of “cleaning up” R&B on several fronts. One is structure, as pop and country have a more systematized verse-chorus relationship that Palmer (1992) discusses in terms of British folk music’s song stanzas and the narrative ballad. Others are R&B’s sexually overt lyrics, loose and rather rough (“spontaneous”) lead and harmony vocals, and the beat, thought to be too rough and powerful to be palatable to the new teenage rock and roll audiences without dilution. Analyses of “covers” of R&B songs by white artists, so important to the emergence of rock and roll into national prominence, illustrate the point (Belz 1972; Shaw 1974; Stuessy and Lipscomb 2009). These recordings separated the various components, subordinated instrumentation to vocals, and in general diluted R&B’s “total rhythm.” Belz therefore argues that the early covers, in using this pop approach, provided a bridge to rock and roll for audiences with pop sensibilities (1972; also Shaw 1974, 126). Typically, then, either R&B rhythm is perceived as making the jump directly to rock and roll, or rock and roll cover versions are perceived as R&B rhythms tempered, if not weakened, for white teenage

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

247

consumption (although, see Campbell [2008] for a more nuanced view). But pop, country, and their European American antecedents are also strongly rhythmic, and it can be argued that it is exactly their approach to rhythm that gives rock and roll its almost mechanical, inexorably steady pulse, what Belz (1972, vii) calls “the most persistent feature of rock.” Thus, while it is true that many rhythmic patterns in rock come from R&B roots, it might be the way they are “straightened out” in rock and roll that makes the latter so musically effective. From this perspective, the direct British influence on rock and roll in later years only accentuates a process begun with the genre’s inception. A closer examination of early rock and roll hits supports this view. While some covers were attempts to exactly mimic the R&B originals, others were (perhaps inadvertently) transformed. A good example may be heard in two versions of “Shake, Rattle and Roll,” as performed by Big Joe Turner (R&B) and Bill Haley and the Comets (rock and roll). The Haley version replaces Turner’s slower original, which featured a “persistent, heavy afterbeat,” with an “up-tempo, four-to-the-bar” approach, and turns “Turner’s earthy R&B version into exuberant, teen-age R ’n’ R” (Shaw 1974, 137). “Queen of the Hop,” performed by Bobby Darin, although not a cover, is another good illustration. Its simple, inflexible, almost monotonous drumming is very different from the “looser,” more syncopated and flexible R&B drumming of the same period, and “drives” exactly for that reason, in what is now a commonplace rock and roll technique. The structured, almost mechanical, approach of the rest of the rhythm section in the song only reinforces this inflexibility and differs from the more unstructured overall sound in R&B. And the result is strikingly similar to much subsequent rock of any period, which derives its rhythmic power from the simple, inexorably steady and predictable pulse that links it to early rock and roll

248

H E C T OR Q I R KO

and separates it quite distinctly from R&B. Meltzer has called this an “invincible relentlessness,” and attributes it to mechanical repetition not only in rhythm, but in lyric, style and thus overall concept as well (1970, 118). In fact, this “straightening out” of the beat can be argued to occur in other American hybrid styles. Western swing, for example, while strongly influenced by jazz and blues rhythms (Wilgus 1970), preserves a country approach to the execution of these styles, to the point that its “swing” is not like swing in jazz at all: syncopation is reduced, and a more regular, staccato emphasis of the 1 and 3 beats replaces the 2 and 4 upbeat emphasis of jazz. In addition, as in the case of Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys, the preeminent Western swing exponent, the drum kit, is reduced almost entirely to a closed hi-hat, snare, and bass drum, reinforcing rigidity in the sense that fewer percussive options are available (Boyd 2001). Another example is the transformation of American (particularly Chicagoan) 1940s and 1950s electric blues by rock-era British blues musicians. The relatively fluid treatment of chord structure, instrumentation, vocal phrasing, and lyrics that characterizes the blues of Muddy Waters and Howlin’ Wolf, for example, is replaced in British blues by a more organized, formal, repetitive strategy in everything but the ubiquitous guitar solos. More importantly in this context, the rhythmic figures in British-style blues, although fundamentally identical to those utilized in pre-rock American blues, are simplified, “regularized,” and stripped of the relaxed, breathing character of the originals. The swing is replaced, as in rock and roll, with a “drive” created by the certainty of the tempo, the figure, and fills. A good example is “Further on up the Road” as performed by Eric Clapton, when compared to the same song in the 1957 version by Bobby Blue Bland or to most other versions of the classic Texas shuffle.

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

249

As in rock and roll, this transformation in other genres can be viewed as simply a different technique for expressing power and excitement rather than, as some would argue, the result of unsophisticated or racially decontextualized musicianship (Baraka 1999; Rudinow 1994). The delightful tension felt as a cause of rhythmic flexibility is replaced by the equally delightful satisfaction of rhythmic inexorability. Thus, it’s not that rock and rollers don’t swing because they can’t, as some have argued; it’s that they’re not trying to. The point is to “rock.” Or, as Willis argues, rock and roll succeeds because it “subverts the bar form, and actually replaces it with a continuous pulse or basic primitive, standardized rhythm. This regular beat . . . is the basic organizing structure of the music” (1990, 53). While R&B obviously utilizes elements of this approach as well, the “drive” in rock and roll, arrived at by the rigidity and simplicity of rhythmic form and execution, takes it further. Listening to almost any up-tempo rock song from the 1950s to today confirms Willis’s observation that rock and roll’s drive often precludes even linear order and temporal structure: “Rock and roll music can be stopped or started at any time; it can be turned back or forward; it can be suspended here and carried on over there; it can be interrupted . . . one of the commonest end-piece forms is the fade, the diminution of a constant beat into nothing—an impossible concept for any previous musical form” (1990, 53). It can be argued, then, that much of rock and roll’s rhythmic approach in fact stems from attributes in both European-American and earlier British traditions. This view is in marked contrast not only to conventional wisdom regarding R&B but to also wider scholarly views of the relationship of European and African influences in popular music. For example, Savage (1989) sees in popular music two “converging traditions: the European ‘classical’ practices from which we also draw much of our harmony, melody, and sense

250

H E C T OR Q I R KO

of form; and African folk idioms and ideas, which have brought to American music the vital elements of spontaneity and syncopated rhythmic freedom” (1989, 67). Nettl points out that the “rather regular alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables [in many AngloAmerican ballads] produces a fairly regular metric structure in the music” (1976, 42). He also finds simple, regular rhythms, like 4/4 and 3/4, very common in British and German folk music. In contrast, African elements are more rhythmically subtle, flexible, and syncopated (Nettl 1976, 91-97). Titon (2009) compares “Amazing Grace” as sung in a black American church and at an Appalachian revival. While in the former, the congregation follows the implied beat loosely, and the leader sings in such a way that the beat is difficult to count but easy to feel, in the latter, the leader signals the beat precisely, with hand gestures, and the congregation is strict in its interpretation of that time. Inasmuch as European American musical influence can be identified and compared to African American influence, one can argue that there is a difference in the perception of rhythm, how it is to be interpreted and manipulated and to what effect. This in turn could be linked to differing cultural norms regarding the relationship between music and society more broadly, including worship, social control, and sexuality (e.g., B. Ward 1998). In American musical forms, a blend of these perceptions inevitably results. What we think of as a rock and roll rhythm is thereby as much “European” as it is “African,” and the European component is a strength, and not a weakness, of the musical style.

Conclusion There is, of course, no single rock and roll beat, whether the focus is on meter, tempo, accents, or overall approach. Nor are any of rock

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

251

and roll’s rhythmic features directly identifiable as contributions from any social or racial group. As with any other American popular music genre, rock and roll and its artists arose as a consequence of complex relations among many groups, a dynamic that is often ignored because it does not reflect larger social and racial constructs (Waterman 2000). The point of the above discussion is simply to show that as good a case can be made for rock and roll’s beat being “white” as “black.” But, if in fact the rock and roll beat is ultimately uncharacterizable in racial terms, why bother? Just as genres are defined socially by means of presumed markers that involve racial and other social-group characterizations, so too are racial, ethnic, and other groups themselves socially defined by means of agreed-upon markers, of which music is an important category (e.g., Killick 2001; Manuel 1994; Trimillos 1989). And the relationship between music marked by race and race marked by music applies as much to popular music and race today as it did in the early 1950s. As Wicke (1990, 4) puts it, “The assumption of a completely separate development of Afro-American and European American music is . . . a racist argument that (still) legitimizes the established barriers between the races” (see also Tagg 1989). Rock, country, contemporary R&B, hip-hop, jazz, and other current styles are still racially marked and as historically and musically inaccurate as ever. By the 1960s, rock and roll had become rock, and “white music” (although with its black rhythmic origins dutifully noted by scholars and critics), and so it remains. As a consequence, in the 1980s, it was a “breakthrough” for MTV to show videos by black artists (Rowland 1989). The hard rock band Living Colour had early troubles being signed by a record label because its members are black (Flanagan 1989). You can pick your examples of the social consequences of the marking of music by race, and they take many forms: Wynton Marsalis, in his early years as director of the Lincoln

252

H E C T OR Q I R KO

Center Jazz Orchestra, famously presented a series of concerts featuring virtually no white performers or composers (Balliett 1991; L. B. Brown 2004). And although hip-hop has become a global music, the white rapper is still a problematic figure to many who view the genre as intrinsically black (Hess 2005). Overly simplified views such as that of the relationship of race to rhythm in rock and roll are not harmless. Americans’ perceptions of their musical genres are as racialized as their views of Americans themselves—and as unfounded. As Marvin Harris has put it, “All racial identity, scientifically speaking, is ambiguous. Wherever certainty is expressed on this subject, we can be confident that society has manufactured a social lie in order to help one of its segments take advantage of another” (1974, 56). In the case of rhythm and rock and roll, the social lie is subtly racist in both directions: it implies that blacks cannot compete with whites in the more “developed” areas of melody, harmony, and structure, while whites can only be imitators in the area of rhythmic sophistication. Stuart Hall notes (in Jhally 1997) that we are “readers” of race, which requires “territories of cultural knowledge” obtained through conventional wisdom and popular culture but also supported by cultural institutions (such as the press and academia) that are presumed to be more legitimate. Perhaps noting the extent to which early rock and roll rhythm is a true and complex hybrid of American and antecedent traditions is not as unnecessary as it might at first glance appear.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Stephen E. Young and Bruce Tomaso for their comments and suggestions.

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

253

References Altschuler, Glenn C. 2003. All Shook Up: How Rock ’n’ Roll Changed America. New York: Oxford University Press. Balliett, Whitney. 1991. “Jazz.” New Yorker, October 14. Baraka, Amiri [LeRoi Jones]. 1999. Blues People: Negro Music in White America. New York: Harper Perennial. Beckett, Alan, and Richard Merton. 1969. “Stones/Comment.” In The Age of Rock: Sounds of the American Cultural Revolution, edited by Jonathan Eisen, 109-17. New York: Vintage Books. Belz, Carl. 1972. The Story of Rock. New York: Harper and Row. Birchall, Ian. 1969. “The Decline and Fall of British Rhythm and Blues.” In The Age of Rock: Sounds of the American Cultural Revolution, edited by Jonathan Eisen, 94-102. New York: Vintage Books. Boyd, Jean A. 2001. Oral Memoirs of Johnny Cuviello and Steve Hathaway. Waco, TX: BaylorUniversity Institute for Oral History. Transcript, http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/ cdm/ref/collection/buioh/id/1228. Brown, Charles T. 1983. The Art of Rock and Roll. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brown, Lee B. 2004. “Marsalis and Baraka: An Essay in Comparative Cultural Discourse.” Popular Music 23(3): 241-55. Campbell, Michael, with James Brody. 2008. Rock and Roll: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Boston: Schirmer. Christgau, Robert. 1992. “Chuck Berry.” In The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll, edited by Anthony DeCurtis and James Henke, with Holly George Warren, 60-66. New York: Random House/Rolling Stone Press.

254

H E C T OR Q I R KO

D’Anjou, Leo. 2003. “The Riddles of Rock and Roll.” Soundscapes: Journal on Media Culture, April 6, http://www.icce.rug. nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME06/Riddles_rocknroll1.shtml. DeCurtis, Anthony. 1996. “Is Rock ’n’ Roll a White Man’s Game?” Time 147(18): 78. Evans, David. 1987. “Blues and Modern Sound: Past, Present, and Future.” In Rock Music in America, edited by Janet Podell, 8-17. New York: H. W. Wilson. Ewen, David. 1977. All the Years of American Popular Music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Flanagan, Bill. 1989. “When Hits Were Hip: Top 40 Experiences its Second Golden Age.” Musician, November. Friedlander, Paul, with Peter Miller. 2006. Rock and Roll: A Social History. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview. George, Nelson. 1989. The Death of Rhythm and Blues. New York: E.P. Dutton. Gillett, Charlie. 1996. The Sound of the City: The Rise of Rock and Roll. New York: Outerbridge & Dienstfrey. Gracyck, Thodore. 1996. Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock. London: Tauris. Hamilton, Michelle. 1999. “Review Article: The Lure of Black Style.” Journal of Contemporary History 34(4): 641-51. Harris, Marvin. 1974. Patterns of Race in the Americas. New York: W. W. Norton. Hatch, David, and Stephen Millward. 1987. From Blues to Rock: An Analytical History of Pop Music. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Hess, Mickey. 2005. “Hip-Hop Realness and the White Performer.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 22(5): 372-89.

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

255

Horowitz, Irving L. 2010. “Rock, Recordings and Rebellion.” In The Anti-American Generation, edited by Edgar Z. Friedenberg, 137-60. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Jhally, Sut. 1997. Race, the Floating Signifier, Featuring Stuart Hall. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation. Transcript, http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/407/ transcript_407.pdf. Kamin, Jonathan. 1975. “Parallels in the Social Reactions to Jazz and Rock.” Black Perspective in Music 3(3): 278-98. Killick, Andrew P. 2001. “Music as Ethnic Marker in Film: The ‘Jewish’ Case.” In Essays on Film and Popular Music, edited by Pamela R. Wojcik and Arthur Knight, 185-201. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Manuel, Peter. 1994. “Puerto Rican Music and Cultural Identity: Creative Appropriation of Cuban Sources from Danza to Salsa.” Ethnomusicology 38(2): 249-80. Marcus, Greil. 1997. Mystery Train: Images of America in Rock ’n’ Roll Music. 4th rev. ed. New York: Plume. Martin, Linda, and Kerry Segrave. 1993. Anti-Rock: The Opposition to Rock ’n’ Roll. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo. Meltzer, Richard. 1970. The Aesthetics of Rock. New York: Something Else Press. Moore, Allan. 2002. “Authenticity as Authentication.” Popular Music 21(2): 209-23. Morrison, Craig. 1996. Go Cat Go! Rockabilly Music and its Makers. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Nettl, Bruno. 1976. Folk Music in the United States. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Palmer, Robert. 1992. “Rock Begins.” In The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll, edited by Anthony DeCurtis and

256



H E C T OR Q I R KO

James Henke, with Holly George Warren, 3-16. New York: Random House/Rolling Stone Press. . 1995. Rock & Roll: An Unruly History. New York: Harmony. Peterson, Richard A. 1997. Creating Country Music: Fabricating Authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Plasketes, George. 1989. “Great Balls of Fire!” Popular Music and Society 13(3): 75-80. Redd, Lawrence N. 1985. “Rock! It’s Still Rhythm and Blues.” Black Perspective in Music 13(1): 31-47. Rowland, M. 1989. “Ebony Meets Ivory: Crossover and MTV Remake the Rules of the Game.” Musician, November. Rudinow, Joel. 1994. “Race, Ethnicity, Expressive Authenticity: Can White People Sing the Blues?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 52(1): 127-37. Salvo, Patrick William. 1989. “Chuck Berry, 1972.” In The Rolling Stone Interviews, edited by Peter Herbst, 224-35. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. Savage, Steve. 1989. The Billboard Book of Rhythm. New York: Watson-Guptill. Shaw, Arnold. 1974. The Rockin’ 50s: The Decade that Transformed the Pop Music Scene. New York: Hawthorn. Smith, Joe, and Mitchell Fink. 1988. Off the Record: An Oral History of Popular Music. New York: Warner. Stuessy, Joe, and Scott Lipscomb. 2009. Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development. 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Szatmary, David P. 2000. Rockin’ in Time: a Social History of Rock and Roll. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Tagg, Philip. 1989. “Open Letter: ‘Black Music’, ‘Afro-American Music’ and ‘European Music’.” Popular Music 8(3): 285-98.

R AC E A N D R H Y T H M I N RO C K A N D ROL L

257

Titon, Jeff Todd. 2009. “North America/Black America.” In Worlds of Music, edited by Jeff T. Titon, 107-42. New York: Schirmer Books. Tosches, Nick. 1999. Unsung Heroes of Rock and Roll: The Birth of Rock in The Wild Years Before Elvis. New York: Da Capo. Trimillos, Ricardo. 1989. “Music and Ethnic Identity: Strategies among Overseas Filipino Youth.” Yearbook for Traditional Music 21:9-21. Ward, Brian. 1998. Just My Soul Responding: Rhythm and Blues, Black Consciousness, and Race Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ward, Ed. 1986. “The Fifties and Before.” In Rock of Ages: The History of Rock and Roll, edited by Ed Ward, Geoffrey Stokes, and Ken Tucker, 17-246. New York: Rolling Stone Press/Summit Books. Waterman, Christopher A. 2000. “Race Music: Bo Chatmon, ‘Corinne Corinna,’ and the Excluded Middle.” In Music and the Racial Imagination, edited by Ronald Radano and Philip V. Bohlman, 167-205. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wicke, Peter. 1990. Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics and Sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wilgus, D. K. 1970. “Country-Western Music and the Urban Hillbilly.” Journal of American Folklore 83(328): 157-79. Willis, Paul. 1990. “The Golden Age.” In On Record: Rock, Pop, and the Written Word, edited by Simon Frith and Andrew Goodwin, 35-45. New York: Pantheon Books.